Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout07/15/89BEAUMONT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JULY 5, 1989 The Planning Commission met in a Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, July 5, 1989, in the City Council Chambers with Chairperson Burton presiding. Meeting was called to Order at 7:02 P.M. Affidavit of Posting was read. On Roll Call, the following commissioners were present: Commissioners Bruner, Fries, Remy and Chairperson Burton. Commissioner Schuelke arrived shortly thereafter. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was observed. 1. The Minutes for the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of June 6, 1989, were approved as submitted. 2. Oral Communication: None. 3. Director's Report: COD Koules reported that the City Council at their meeting of June 12, 1989, approved the concept plan for the riding trail. He also distributed Request Forms to the Planning Commission, as well as a letter from the Park and Recreation Dist. dated July 5, 1989 (Item #6) and a letter from the School Dist. dated June 19, 1989 (Item #6). CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4. 89 -PP -2, Amendment #1, and 89 -ND -7, a proposal to construct approximately 32,827 sq. ft. of mini - warehousing facilities (mini storage) on 1.55 acres, located on the east side of Allegheny Avenue about 300 feet north of its intersection with Sixth Street. Applicant, Vincent Denise. COD Koules noted that this item was continued from the hearing of June 6th at the request of the applicant to study the conditions of approval. Mr. Koules wanted it noted that this property was rezoned to commercial general to comply with the general plan which shows it as commercial which was done several months ago. A layout was worked out utilizing the same parking requirements that the City of Banning utilizes and staff's recommendation is to approve the project with the conditions of approval. Mr. Vincent Danise, 10570 Jonathan, Cherry Valley, addressed the commission noting he was willing to accept the conditions as written. There being no opponents wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the continued public hearing at 7:10 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. Commissioner Schuelke questioned as to why the City of Banning's parking requirements were used. CDD Koules commented that our zoning ordinance does not address mini warehouses, and that the Ron Whittier project on 6th Street (mini warehousing portion of site) no parking was required as well as on the Smith's project on 6th Street. He explained that this is just brief loading and unloading of miniature storage spaces. PC Meeting of July 5, 1989 Page 2 In response to Commissioner Schuelke's question regarding improvement of the adjacent alley, Mr. Dotson noted that if the carwash delays and Denise goes ahead, the applicant will have to improve the alley to the end of his property, plus he has to go back to the back of Kragen Auto Parts (showing exit for all the runoff which will be heavy). If the carwash comes in before Denise, their requirement is to construct the alley back to Denise's part. COD Koules noted that there is no special setback requirement due to the residential area to the north. On motion by Commissioner Bruner to approve 89 -PP -2, Amendment #1 and 89 -ND -7, a request to construct approximately 32,827 sq. ft. of mini - warehousing facilities (mini storage) on 1.55 acres, located on the east side of Allegheny Avenue about 300 ft. north of the intersection of 6th Street per staff's findings that the proposal conforms to the development standards of the C -G Commercial General Zone. The recommended conditions of approval will mitigate the impact of the project on surrounding land uses and assure a quality project; seconded by Commissioner Remy. motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries, and Remy. NOES: Chairperson Burton. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. 5. 88 -PP -2, Amendment #5 and 89 -ND -8, a proposal to construct a 2,000 sq. ft. restaurant (to replace existing restaurant) and a 2,080 sq. ft. retail commercial building on 0.64 acres, located at the northwest corner of Sixth Street and Palm Avenue. Applicant, Gus and Frances Poulopoulos. Mr. Gus Poulopoulos, 6214 N. Loma Street, Temple City, addressed the commission commenting that he was not asking for a variance or anything. Chairperson Burton then asked if there were any opponents wishing to speak against this project. There being none, she then closed the public hearing at 7:25 P.m., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. COD Koules noted there should be a staff report and commented that the revised plot plan meets all of the setbacks and all of the parking requirements. The need for the variances advertised are no longer valid since the applicant has complied with all the requirements as per our ordinance. Commissioner Schuelke questioned the stacking lane with COD Koules noting that it was advertised for a reduction from 200 ft. to 140 ft.; however, the applicant chose not to utilize the variance request. He also noted that the parking spaces for the commercial building does not back up into the stacking lane. He further noted, that there would be 20 parking spaces for the restaurant and 10 for the commercial building. Also parking spaces in most commercial uses do allow for diagonal parking. On motion by Commissioner Fries to approve 88 -PP -2, Amendment #5 and 89 -ND -8, a proposal to construct a 2,000 sq. ft. restaurant and a 2,080 sq. ft. retail commercial building on 0.64 acres, located at the northwest corner of Sixth Street and Palm Avenue; seconded by Commissioner Bruner. Commissioner Schuelke than asked why they were providing 9 compact parking spaces, with COD Koules noting that 30% can be compact spaces. PC Meeting of July 5, 1989 Page 3 Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Bruner, Schuelke, Fries and Remy. NOES: Chairperson Burton. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. PUBLIC HEARING: 6. 89 -TM -6 (Tr. 23646) and 89 -ND -9, for a proposed subdivision project consisting of 51 single family lots, located on the north side of Cougar Way about 1,800 ft. east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue. Applicant, Aware Development. CDD Koules explained that this project was originally submitted for a 50 single family lots on a 13.3 acre portion of a 40 acre parcel; however, the State Subdivision map Act does not allow for the partial subdivision of an existing legal lot. Consequently, the applicant revised the original map proposal in order to include the whole 40 acre parcel within the boundaries of the tentative map, thereby creating Lot 51 as a remainder parcel. The applicant and his representative have been notified that any further subdivision of Lot 51 would require the final recordation of the map now under consideration prior to any application being accepted for further subdivision of Lot 51. The conditions of approval have to all be met before the map can be recorded. Chairperson Burton then asked if Palm, Agnes, Alexe, etc., will eventually flow into this project with City Engineer Mr. Dotson answering "yes ". City Engineer Dotson noted that there is a plan which encompasses everything between Beaumont Avenue, Cougar, and Brookside which was done primarily because of the channel which will go through and because of Palm Avenue - there is a comprehensive plan of the whole area. He further noted that he had recommended the applicant come back with a concept plan like the commission reviewed on Palm south of Cougar Way. Chairperson Burton then opened the public hearing at 7:44 P.M. asking for proponents /opponents from the audience wishing to speak. Mr. Dennis Farnsworth With JDR Corporation, Engineer for this project, addressed the commission stating he feels they have a very nice layout. Mr. Farnsworth noted there were only three conditions which he would like to slightly chan a if possible which were 4.06 and 1 and 2 under Section 5 ?Page 9). He wanted 4.06 changed to read "to guarantee a minimum of 15 or 20' useable rear yard space" and explained that in some cases only 3' high retaining wall would be needed to guarantee a useable back yard rather than a 5 or 6' retaining wall with City Engineer Dotson acknowledging he would go along with this. Mr. Farnsworth then questioned 1 and 2 under Section 5 wanting to know if he could start his grading operation while the Cougar bridge is being constructed since the grading should not increase the run -off with Mr. Dotson explaining what will happen if the 100 year storm comes - crossing must be built first. There is an agreement being written which is still in negotiation and the condition will be whatever the agreement says, so no action has to be taken now. Mr. Farnsworth commented that he would like to be able to submit his improvement plans at the return of the first check from Flood Control. Mr. Dotson explained that Section 5, 1, 2 and 3 were for informational use only; however, the bold face sentence which starts with "therefore" should be honored. PC Meeting of July 5, 1989 Page 4 Mr. Farnsworth noted that the Planning Commission, City Council and staff would get a complete new approval on Lot 51. They had already signed an agreement between the developers of the Devcorp project and their project showing where the money will be coming from in building their portion of the channel. Ms. Barbara Voigt, 38537 Orchard St., Cherry Valley, addressed the commission asking that the letter that was submitted by the School District be read into the record and also how the developer is responding to it. Chairperson Burton then read the letter from the School District dated June 19, 1989 for the record (see attached). Mr. Farnsworth commented that the fee mentioned in the letter is to help provide for new schools and classrooms with COD Koules noting that this was also included in the conditions of approval which has been a standard condition. There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Burton then closed the public hearing at 8:14 P.M., turning the matter back to the commission for discussion. There was discussion pertaining to this project with Mr. Dotson noting that the commission can approve this Tract subject to whatever the council accepts in the agreement. Mr. Farnsworth noted that it is going to take the City Attorney, the developer and their attorney, City Manager and City Engineer about 4 months to resolve what this agreement is really going to be - quite a long process. Mr. Dotson again noted that every Tract in this whole zone including those down stream all the way to 14th Street will be effected by the agreement. On motion by Commissioner Remy to approve Tract Map 89 -TM -6 (Tr. 23645) and 89 -ND -6, for a proposed subdivision project consisting of 51 single family lots, located on the north side of Cougar Way about 1,800 ft. east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue, subject to the conditions of approval with an amendment on 4.06 of the City Engineer's Conditions to read as follows: Along the rear of Lots 32 -39 inclusive, retaining walls along property lines shall be utilized in lieu of slopes to guarantee a minimum of 20' useable rear yard spaces. Seconded by Commissioner Fries. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Bruner, Fries and Remy. NOES: Commissioner Schuelke and Chairperson Burton. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. There being no further business before the commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:32 P.M. Respectfully submitted, he y� PC Se retar BEAUMOL, UNIFIED SCHOOL L�STRICT ED BOARD OF TRUSTEES DANIEL CLINE ``tS • V� y~ JOHN WOOD ROBERT ERT N DR JERILYNN KAIBEL ,j AuWAM Sap of au.b., WI LARD LOVE STRATTON DR WILLIAM STRATTON RONALD PAATADi t AsdaM S°p of BENJAMIN UPTON N DR MAROOT DURKE `r 'Q Shavw e4wwomme, DiMW at EpeW EV suf D.wbpm t June 19, 1989 Mr. Stephen Koules Director, Community Development City of Beaumont P.O. Box 158 Beaumont, CA 92223 RE: Case #89 —TM -6 Dear Mr. Koules: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to case #89 —TM -6. As described in the Project Review Transmyttal Form this project proposes a 50 S.F. Subdivision. It has been the past practice of our District to provide your agency with infor- mation on the effects of proposed projects in terms of identifying the number of students for who we would be expected to provide adequate school facilities. Since the draft does not presently contain commentary related to schools, we would like to suggest that the following concerns and /or comments be considered for inclusion in the final EIR. The project will be served by the Beaumont Unified School District. While the District is at capacity it has been its practice to accommodate increased enrollments through the acquisition of temporary classrooms located on its existing six (6) campuses. Depending upon the phasing and completion dwelling units in this project, the District may no longer be able to accommodate growth in this manner. The reason for this is that not only are the existing classrooms at capacity but the campuses themselves are close to capacity. Although there remains sufficient area for the placement of relocatable classrooms at some campuses, it is no longer possible for the District to ensure that there will be available classrooms to house the students coming from this project. We are concerned that this project will increase traffic on both Cougar Way and Beaumont Avenue. The location of the proposed E St. and a new portion of Palm St. may necessitate the redesigning of the H.S. student parking lot, review of pedestrian flow, and review of traffic flow in consideration of present location of Transportation and Maintenance Facilities. 125 W. Fifth • P.O. Box 187 0 Beaumont, California 92223 • (714) 845 -1631 C i �T S L N Page 2 In addition the Beaumont Unified School District Resolution #87 -17 levies a fee against all new construction within the District's boundaries pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080. The fee is currently $1.56 per square foot for residential construction and 26J per square foot for commercial /industrial construction. New construction includes habitable areas only. Square foot for remodels and additions includes only additional habitable area. Please keep us informed on how our concerns will be addressed by both the Beaumont Planning Department and the project. Si ncerel y�` Robert T. Guil n Assistant Superintendent of Business RTG /em y 4 i _* S x y 4 i Noble Creek Community Center 38900 Fourteenth Street July 5, 1989 Mr. Stepphen Koules Planning Director City of Beaumont 550 E. Sixth Street Beaumont, CA 92223 P.O. Box 490 Beaumont Calif. 99993 (714] 946 -9888 DHEHE© JUL 0 5 1989 CITY OF BEAUMONT PLANNING DEPT. Re: Proposed subdivision project consisting of 50 single family lots, located on the north side of Cougar Way about 1800 feet east of its intersection with Beaumont Avenue. Applicant: Aware Development (89 -TM -6, TR. 23646) (89 -ND -9) Dear Mr. Koules: The purpose of this letter is to comment on and call to your attention severe and significant environmental implications of the referenced project which have not been previously considered, and to request that a full Environmental Impact Report be prepared pursuant to the City of Beaumont's Rules to implement the California Environmental Quality Act. The Beaumont: - Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District objects to considerat.ior. of a 'degative Declaration being associated with this project until sufficient measures are incorporated to mitigate the adverse impacts which the referenced project will have upon the Recreation and Park District's provision of high quality recreational activities to the children and adults of the Beaumont community. The proposed project will of course result in physical changes in the environment including, but not limited to, the reduction of the amount of land available for the development of park sites. The significant number of residents which will inhabit the 50 residential units will necessitate expanding the Recreation and Park. District's already over - extended facilities. At least one n L Aware Development 7/5/89 Page 2 public agency, the County of Riverside, has responded to the strains placed upon recreation and park districts by increased development, by establishing a "Quimby" -type ordinance to mitigate the adverse impacts resulting from new development. For the reasons stated herein, the Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District believes that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the City of Beaumont should either continue its consideration of the proposed Negative Declaration until adequate mitigation measures are incorporated, or require an EIR to be prepared for the project pursuant to Section 15065 of Title 14 of the California Administrative Code which requires a lead agency find that a project may have a significant effect on the environment and thereby require an EIR to be prepared where the project has the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment. As part of that environmental impact report process, the Beaumont- Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District of course stands ready and willing to discuss its own concerns with respect to the provision of recreation facilities within the referenced project and the impacts the said project will have upon the Beaumont community. Very truly yours, �. l Brian A. Ross General Manager Beaumont - Cherry Valley Recreation and Park District BAR /br Y f